Yep, especially considering Goyer's forewords to Secret Origin where he comments on how much he likes this particular origin:

“There is a heart breaking moment halfway through the first chapter in which young Clark is told the truth about his heritage. He races out into the night, sobbing, stumbling through the cornfields. Eventually, his foster father, Jonathan, finds him.

‘I don’t want to be someone else,’ says Clark. ‘I don’t want to be different. I want to be Clark Kent.’

‘I want to be your son".

Definitely sounds like Smallville-Clark Kent will be the real Kal-El. That might also make for the bigger drama onscreen at least.

Then of course later on Smallville-Clark and Superman will probably merge into the same person more or less.

Agreed. I mean personally, I never liked on how easily Clark accepted his alien heritage after having lived as a human being for 18 years...well actually 15 since he arrived on Earth when he was three..in S:TM.

There's a lot of potential and realistic drama that could be used from Clark struggling with the fact that he's not only a alien, but the fact that he's the last of his kind essentially (well until he meets Zod, then he'll be the last sane person alive of his kind).

And I really hope that they emphasize the importance of Clark's relationship with his Earth Parents; since it was due to their guidance that he had such a strong moral foundation to build off from in order to become Superman.

I think one thing that a good amount of people that I've seen tend to overlook is how important it was that a couple like the Kents found Clark when they did on Earth. I mean like the crappy reboot is showing with the military, or like elseworld tales on shows or stories have shown, Clark could have easily gone down the wrong path as a young person had he been given the wrong set of parents who not only couldn't understand and accept him, but lead him in the right way.

Well, I have my opinion on the "Clark or Superman:Which is real?" debate, but since, especially in this thread, it seems to be "tangled up" with so many other story elements ("Ma & Pa: Dead or Alive?", "Krypton: Cold, Unfeeling World or Idyllic Utopia?" "Superman's power levels" ,etc....) as if it's an all-or-nothing choice between complete Pre-Crisis or complete Post-Crisis, which it isn't. I'll try to touch on a number of points....

Superman/Clark: Superman(AKA "Real" Clark/Kal-El) is the real persona. In fact, the Post-Crisis character isn't even REALLY 2 personas, he's just one, since both Superman and Metropolis Clark act the same. There's NO interesting dichotomy whatsoever. AND even that 1 persona has often been portrayed as much more naive, and "Big-Blue Boy Scout"-ish than Superman was, and should be. Whereas with a "Silver Age" portrayal, Clark, as many have pointed out, serves as a way for a guy who realizes that all his powers put him at a distance from the people who he feels such a kinship with(from growing up as essentially one of them), to still have a way to interact w/them on a normal level.

It's also funny that some people try to argue for a more Post-Crisis portrayal by coming up w/ the 3 personas argument, when really all that amounts to is a 2 persona scenario where Superman is the real person. The reason for this is because the "Real/Smallville Clark" and Superman are the same personality. They both act like the same confident, self-assured, outgoing man, so they don't count as 2 separate personalities. Meanwhile, he DOES act different from his real self as the mild-mannered reporter Clark, thus this is really just the "Silver-Age" version, not some new-way of looking at the character that you've all figured out.

Ma & Pa: Now here's where my point about it not being an "all-or-nothing" proposition comes into play. As much as I'd like Superman himself to be portrayed more like the Pre-Crisis version, there are many elements of Byrne's version I've liked, and two elements I've LOVED. Ma and Pa being alive is one of those two(corporate Lex is the other). They are just such likable characters, and it gives Superman an element of his world that's different than damn near every other major superhero. However, as I'm sure Kurosawa would point out, I don't want Superman to be a "mama's boy" who constantly cries on their shoulder. I'd just like them to be there, for Clark to visit when he just wants to "take a break" for a few hours, and have at least one small outlet to have "normal" human interaction outside of the Metropolis Clark disguise. As for the "pathos" issue, Superman has plenty of pathos anyway, what with nearly his entire species dead, and him "learning that his powers can't stop death" can be learned many other ways(such as the African storyline from "Birthright", which seems as if it might be part of MOS).

Krypton: I don't hate the Post-Crisis Krypton, in fact I quite like it, because of alot of the cool story elements that've come FROM it(and I think it has the BEST visual design of baby Kal-El's rocketship ever), but a more Silver-Age/Utopian type Krypton gives Superman that much more to mourn the loss of. After all, even Byrne himself has said that he made Krypton a world that "deserved to die", which IMO is a mistake. I'll just quote a post I made last year which really sums it up for me...
"Even though I prefer a utopian Krypton more like the Silver/Bronze age, I also love the rich backstory and visual designs of Krypton and it's history from Byrne's era. Their history of wars over cloning and genetic engineering(which was even revealed to be a part of Doomsday's origin,eventually), those wicked battlesuits, the Eradicator. Even the cold and sterile age of Byrne's Jor-El could be worked in as part of the HISTORY of a more classic depiction of Krypton. In fact I think that Byrne's concept of the deadly weapons of Krypton's ancient wars being the eventual cause of it's explosion works even BETTER if the modern Krypton is more utopian rather than dystopian. That way, you have the tragedy of a world that rose above it's past struggles to the heights of greatness, but was still cruelly punished for it's "past sins". Oh man ,how I wish that we could just get an amazing "World of Krypton" movie. Epic in scope, showing some of the past of the world, then diving into the story of the political/military intrigue involving Jor-El, Zod, and the ruling council. Throw in a Brainiac that combines elements of TAS and the current comics version. End it with Kal-El being rocketed away. Instant epic blockbuster that also serves to get everyone drooling for the new Superman reboot. Never gonna happen, but a geek can dream"
.......so that's my thoughts on Krypton. And, since the current Geoff Johns version of Krypton does a decent job of combining elements from Silver-Age, Donner, and Byrne, I think it's a pretty good model to build off for MOS.

Superman's Power Levels: I'll have to go with the modern level of Superman's powers(mid-90's to current) which are higher than Byrne's level, but still not "planet-juggling" level. Not because I don't think the Silver-Age "godlike" powers can't provide for interesting stories(they can), but just because the Pre-Crisis power levels are unnecessary. The modern Supes is still PHENOMANALLY powerful enough to touch on the interesting ethical/philosophical and whimsical/awe-inspiring stories that were done Pre-Crisis, while still leaving room for believable "action-oriented" slugfests where we can believe that he might actually be in danger.

Lex:"Mad" Scientist or Corporate tycoon? This one hasn't really been mentioned so far in this thread, but it deserves a mention. Definetely corporate. And NOT Supes' childhood friend from Smallville, either, which I've always found a bit hokey. Although he SHOULD still be the most brilliant scientist on Earth (one aspect that Michael Rosenbaum's otherwise excellent version completely lacked, sadly). Byrne, while he added the brilliant "corporate" touch that Marv Wolfman suggested, didn't play up the genius aspect enough, for the first few years of Post-Crisis Lex often seemed less a genius/scientist and more just a clever/ruthless businessman who had scientists WORKING for him. For my money, the best versions of Lex EVER were in Millar's Red Son & DCAU. A corporate billionaire who was also the smartest man on Earth. He still serves the same functions as the Pre-Crisis Lex AND has the corporate element that makes for a much more believable reasoning for his constant presence as, not an occassional "villain of the month", but a regular member of the supporting cast(which he is in both Pre & Post-crisis).

Like, I said, not an "all-or-nothing" situation between Silver and Modern Age. Superman himself? Classic all the way, baby. Superman's world? A little bit of everything, thank you.
*Forrest Gump voice* "And that's about all I got to say about that"

Boy this thread could easily turn into one of the most heated and debated threads considering the subject that's being discussed (one that has been argued by many people throughout several years prior to this).lol

I don't know, one could argue that Superman and Clark (Smallville/Farmer One) are two sides of the same coin.

Then again, one could also potentially say that when Clark is Superman, he has to display a "larger than life" persona in order to be that heroic figure that the world needs him to be, whereas when he's just Clark, he's able to relax and be himself.

I think if anything, one of the reasons why there are so many fans of the interpretation of Clark being the real persona is that it gives the character humanistic traits that were harder to find for a lot back in the Golden Age period.

In my honest opinion, I would imagine the real persona being someone who has a lot of human traits and enjoys a lot of the things that we do as well. Whether it be having a favorite food/dish, enjoying a healthy sex life with his spouse, getting annoyed by irritating individuals, etc. I mean he was raised as a human being, and regardless if his parents die or live in this tale, I strongly doubt that he'd lose his humanity from that.

Man, when I really think about it, it's a wonder that Clark/Superman hasn't gone insane from the pressure of having to act in a way that the public needs to see him, whether it be Mild Mannered Clark, or the Heroic Superman. One must wonder if he starts to question as to who he really is from time to time.lol

Well, I have my opinion on the "Clark or Superman:Which is real?" debate, but since, especially in this thread, it seems to be "tangled up" with so many other story elements ("Ma & Pa: Dead or Alive?", "Krypton: Cold, Unfeeling World or Idyllic Utopia?" "Superman's power levels" ,etc....) as if it's an all-or-nothing choice between complete Pre-Crisis or complete Post-Crisis, which it isn't. I'll try to touch on a number of points....

Superman/Clark: Superman(AKA "Real" Clark/Kal-El) is the real persona. In fact, the Post-Crisis character isn't even REALLY 2 personas, he's just one, since both Superman and Metropolis Clark act the same. There's NO interesting dichotomy whatsoever. AND even that 1 persona has often been portrayed as much more naive, and "Big-Blue Boy Scout"-ish than Superman was, and should be. Whereas with a "Silver Age" portrayal, Clark, as many have pointed out, serves as a way for a guy who realizes that all his powers put him at a distance from the people who he feels such a kinship with(from growing up as essentially one of them), to still have a way to interact w/them on a normal level.

It's also funny that some people try to argue for a more Post-Crisis portrayal by coming up w/ the 3 personas argument, when really all that amounts to is a 2 persona scenario where Superman is the real person. The reason for this is because the "Real/Smallville Clark" and Superman are the same personality. They both act like the same confident, self-assured, outgoing man, so they don't count as 2 separate personalities. Meanwhile, he DOES act different from his real self as the mild-mannered reporter Clark, thus this is really just the "Silver-Age" version, not some new-way of looking at the character that you've all figured out.

Do you think as Superman he is completely acting himself?

I mean, I hate this whole debate, because I think anyone on either side of it is not seeing the whole picture.

Superman is not a person. He is something Clark constructed in order to be able to use his powers in the open, and inspire hope as a larger than life being.

In that sense, he acts MORE confident, MORE perfect, MORE authoritative than he would do when he was just being himself.

Superman allows the world to see one side of himself, but he has to over exaggerate it in order to pull it off.

Clark's Persona at the Daily Planet is ALSO something he constructed as part of his disguise. But it is also another side to himself. The side that is good at writing, and interested in journalism as a way of finding the truth. The side that is humble, modest, an outsider, and an all around good guy that most would percieve as naive (when not appearing like a god).

But he has to exaggerate those qualities too.

He has to be even more humble, even more of an outsider, even more naive in order to pull of the disguise.

Neither of those personas are more Clark than the other. But neither one is who he truly is. You only really get to know Clark Kent when you know his secret, because before that happens, he's ALWAYS pretending.

I'd say the only time he let's that slip a bit, is when he's with Lois as Superman or Clark.

When he's in the suit, he should be saying 'thank you mam' and flying off all stoic and noble and detatched. But he let's her in a bit, let's her see the side of Superman that is also a man.

And then when she's with Clark, she sometimes catches him doing something or saying something that is a bit too confident, a bit more than just the humble farm boy, and it makes her wonder if there's more to him than he let's on.

And it's very difficult for him to not let the disguises slip completely, because deep down he wants her to know him, he wants her to see that he is the combination of both those men.

Now whether or not you think that is a boring dynamic in comparison to an alien who dresses up like a human to pretend to be on of them is up to you.

Personally I prefer it the way I see it.

__________________

I think back to my father. As a farmer, he had a natural understanding for the Earth. I remember him telling me this world is capable of providing for all its creatures. Even now, with so many more people, there exists enough food for everyone.

"The problem," Pa used to say, "is people. As far back as we go, we've always had problems with sharing. Seems everyone's too busy holding on to what they've got to care how their neighbors are doing."

If I had to choose between merely two personas I would go for more Superman than Clark, and it's very simple why. He wants to be out there saving people, that's what he wanted to accomplish with his life, and he does that as Superman.

If I had to choose between merely two personas I would go for more Superman than Clark, and it's very simple why. He wants to be out there saving people, that's what he wanted to accomplish with his life, and he does that as Superman.

But you don't have to choose, that's my point.

Why can he not just be both people equally. Why does one of his disguises have to be the 'real' one?

Why can't he just be a guy, with more than one side...

__________________

I think back to my father. As a farmer, he had a natural understanding for the Earth. I remember him telling me this world is capable of providing for all its creatures. Even now, with so many more people, there exists enough food for everyone.

"The problem," Pa used to say, "is people. As far back as we go, we've always had problems with sharing. Seems everyone's too busy holding on to what they've got to care how their neighbors are doing."

It's also funny that some people try to argue for a more Post-Crisis portrayal by coming up w/ the 3 personas argument, when really all that amounts to is a 2 persona scenario where Superman is the real person. The reason for this is because the "Real/Smallville Clark" and Superman are the same personality. They both act like the same confident, self-assured, outgoing man, so they don't count as 2 separate personalities. Meanwhile, he DOES act different from his real self as the mild-mannered reporter Clark, thus this is really just the "Silver-Age" version, not some new-way of looking at the character that you've all figured out.

Uh...no. Just because you think "Real Clark" and Superman are the same personality does not mean those who support the three person theory do. Real Clark, as other's have said, would have more down to earth aspects to him than his Superman persona would.

And no one said it was some new way of looking at the character, so I dont see your need to knock anyone off of a high horse that dosent exist. In fact, Bryan Singer said he used the "three persona" technique for SR.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafizbat

Welcome to the Batman v Superman forums, where people will take a perfectly reasonable comment you make and twist it into something completely different to make themselves feel better.

I mean, I hate this whole debate, because I think anyone on either side of it is not seeing the whole picture.

Superman is not a person. He is something Clark constructed in order to be able to use his powers in the open, and inspire hope as a larger than life being.

In that sense, he acts MORE confident, MORE perfect, MORE authoritative than he would do when he was just being himself.

Superman allows the world to see one side of himself, but he has to over exaggerate it in order to pull it off.

Clark's Persona at the Daily Planet is ALSO something he constructed as part of his disguise. But it is also another side to himself. The side that is good at writing, and interested in journalism as a way of finding the truth. The side that is humble, modest, an outsider, and an all around good guy that most would percieve as naive (when not appearing like a god).

But he has to exaggerate those qualities too.

He has to be even more humble, even more of an outsider, even more naive in order to pull of the disguise.

Neither of those personas are more Clark than the other. But neither one is who he truly is. You only really get to know Clark Kent when you know his secret, because before that happens, he's ALWAYS pretending.

I'd say the only time he let's that slip a bit, is when he's with Lois as Superman or Clark.

When he's in the suit, he should be saying 'thank you mam' and flying off all stoic and noble and detatched. But he let's her in a bit, let's her see the side of Superman that is also a man.

And then when she's with Clark, she sometimes catches him doing something or saying something that is a bit too confident, a bit more than just the humble farm boy, and it makes her wonder if there's more to him than he let's on.

And it's very difficult for him to not let the disguises slip completely, because deep down he wants her to know him, he wants her to see that he is the combination of both those men.

Now whether or not you think that is a boring dynamic in comparison to an alien who dresses up like a human to pretend to be on of them is up to you.

Personally I prefer it the way I see it.

It's not really a question of wh he becomes when he retires, because what will happen, unless he is KIA as Superman, is that eventually, everyone he loves-Lois, Lana, Jimmy and Perry, Lex (because Superman loves Lex, and that is part of why he wants him to reform), Batman-will all grow old and die. And when that happens, he can't keep the Clark Kent persona going. So eventually all that will be left is Superman, born Kal-El, raised as Clark Kent, matured from Superboy to Superman.

Kingdom Come explored this beautifully. Superman without his human side becomes detached and isn't a true hero. Yes eventually all the humans he loves will die but that doesn't mean Clark has to die. Clark is who he is. Just because a person is immortal doesn't mean, his spirit and who he is has to die when all his family dies. Also Superboy is one of the most unneeded aspects about Superman. Yes he can have adventures as a youth in secret but he doesn't need to be Superboy.

If we're talking about Superboy as in the version where Clark Kent was superboy before he was Superman, then count me on that bandwagon.

I never liked the idea that Clark was Superboy before Superman because for me, it took away the uniqueness and impact that Clark made when he decided to become expose himself to the world for the first time as Superman.

Haven't followed the current Superboy series for the past couple of issues, but it's decent. Sometimes it feels like the darkness is out of place, given the setting (Smallville) and the main character (Conner). The subject matter has covered child sacrifice in a satanic ritual, for example.

If we're talking about Superboy as in the version where Clark Kent was superboy before he was Superman, then count me on that bandwagon.

I never liked the idea that Clark was Superboy before Superman because for me, it took away the uniqueness and impact that Clark made when he decided to become expose himself to the world for the first time as Superman.

I'm talking about Conner as well.

__________________CM Punk = Best In The World

Quote:

"In the deep, dark hills of eastern Kentucky That's the place where I trace my bloodline And it's there I read on a hillside gravestone"

Superman is like if Clark puts on a police badge. He has a job to do. He must act and behave in a certain way that commands authority.
But even when he's Superman, he's still Clark when talking to Lois. Saying the things that "Metropolis Clark" can't.

Superman is not a separate personality, it's just Clark behaving the way in which he is required and expected.

Kal-El is NOT who he is. It's nothing but a birth name and who he would have been. The Kryptonian heritage is like a religion. He honours Krypton and his parents by bearing the symbol. He is a man of 2 worlds.
But we all know where Superman's true loyalty and love lies... Earth.

So IMO...Clark Kent is the real personality, because it's also Superman's personality.

__________________“The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing”Albert Einstein

That's every other superhero in the world, though, plus it is not what Superman's creators intended. And Clark being the real personality has been tried for 25 years...and failed. It's a time-tested proven failure. It just is.

If all being Superman is is being like a cop or firefighter, then there's nothing really all that unique. He's just another hero who has powers and uses them to help people. If you want something that simple, read Spider-Man.

Superman is much, much more, a character with a rich and deep mythology that was stripped away in 1986 but which had been steadily returning until news of this "reboot." I fear we'll have to wait another twenty-five years or so to see that mythology return to the character, if ever.

That's every other superhero in the world, though, plus it is not what Superman's creators intended. And Clark being the real personality has been tried for 25 years...and failed. It's a time-tested proven failure. It just is.

Batman creators had him killing when he first appeared. Do you want Batman to off a couple of dudes now? Your a silver age purist, I get that. You want all those silly concepts to return, I get that. He'll you even said yourself you want all those silly concepts in the movie. Ask yourself this question though. And be honest and don't be a silver age purist for a second. Do you truly think a Silver Age Superman movie in today's world could work? Camp and all. If you answer yes, then you want this movie to fail. Cause Superdog ain't gonna work unless this is a children's film. A giant key is gonna look stupid. That ain't gonna work. A perfect hero(SuperGod) ain't gonna work. You get the picture. Do you want this film to be good and successful or have it bomb and cater to what you want as a Silver age purist. Those Silver age concepts just aren't gonna work in 2012. Thats a simple fact. A Superman who can move planets is too far fetched. It's the common reason why most hate the character today. It's not because they made him Batman's ***** as so like to call it. It because those silver age sterotypes about Superman are still in place. We need a modern, fun, and believable Superman movie. We've had the silver age Superman for five movies now. Its time to see if Bryne's Superman can work which it most undoubtedly can.

A silver age Superman would work just fine as a modern movie, and All Star Superman already proved a Silver Age inspired Supes works in a modern setting.

Bryne's Superman can work, but it wont make Superman great. MOS is Superman following trends instead of setting them. Its Superman trying to be a marvel character. It had some great ideas, but overall its safe as hell, and hasnt even lasted in modern comics the way Batman: Year One has for Batman. Everyone reveres Batman Year One in the Batman canon. MOS has been replaced 4 times already. Birthright has easily bested MOS, and its a book that uses Silver Age and Golden Age ideas in addition to modern ones.

I also wish people would stop referring to Silver Age Supes as a perfect hero, especially since its obvious that they dont know what they're talking about. Sure, pre crisis Supes wasnt weeping on comic book covers like modern supes does, but there's a lot of tragedy to his character that could be explored in a modern context.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafizbat

Welcome to the Batman v Superman forums, where people will take a perfectly reasonable comment you make and twist it into something completely different to make themselves feel better.

All-star proved nothing, imo, except that, with great writers on board, any character can soar to new heights. And it is just a comic that was read by a VERY FEW selected people. It would never work in an live action movie for the masses. It is a good story but far from being the best Superman story ever. Its way overrated. There's about 3/4 issues that are top notch. Jonathan's death, Lex interviewed by Clark, and issue 10 and 12. The rest all have been done better in some way or another.

-Survivors from Krypton have been written better: Whole Eradicator saga in post-crisis.

-Lois have been written better: Lois & Clark, even Smallville.

-Monster Jimmy Olsen: Are you serious??!!

-Bizarro world? Zibarro? The clone of Superman is a much better concept than this stupidity.

I seriously think "Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow" is a better "last story", imo.

But, imo, Kingdom Come, Peace on Earth, Birthright, Action Comics #775, Superman for all seasons, Death and Return Saga, Death of Clark Kent, Secret Identity are much better stories than All-Star. At least I enjoyed reading them more instead of the egocentric Morrison writing. DC one million is pure CRAP.

I guess Marvel=Conflict and story telling. I agree that Birthright is better than MOS but MOS was to changed and deconstruct and breath new life into the character. Which it did. I rather we have Birthright which yes uses all eras of Superman than go with a All-Star Superman which is way to light. I want a mature and serious Superman film where **** gets real. but is still firmly based in post crisis than see the same Superman we have saw for the last five films. Also Birthright>>>>>>>All-Star Superman.

I personally didn't like All Star Superman. I think the only thing I liked there was the dynamic between Clark and Lex - he hates Superman but doesn't mind Clark.

But it had a lot of ideas all shoved into one, some of them in a way that made no sense, or just came out of no where.

They are basing this movier in the 'real' world setting. We will be seeing none of that IMO.

The more you see of the Fortress with robots and Superman's science experiments, and time travellers... The further away from reality this film will be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

It's not really a question of wh he becomes when he retires, because what will happen, unless he is KIA as Superman, is that eventually, everyone he loves-Lois, Lana, Jimmy and Perry, Lex (because Superman loves Lex, and that is part of why he wants him to reform), Batman-will all grow old and die. And when that happens, he can't keep the Clark Kent persona going. So eventually all that will be left is Superman, born Kal-El, raised as Clark Kent, matured from Superboy to Superman.

I was thinking of the 'Whatever happened to the man of Tomorrow' concept, of Clark leaving the world in the hands of other Superheroes that have followed him, and settling down for a life with Lois as Clark.

Whether you think he's immortal and Lois will die before him, the point was, if he chose to settle down and have a life for himself at some point, he'd do that as Clark.

__________________

I think back to my father. As a farmer, he had a natural understanding for the Earth. I remember him telling me this world is capable of providing for all its creatures. Even now, with so many more people, there exists enough food for everyone.

"The problem," Pa used to say, "is people. As far back as we go, we've always had problems with sharing. Seems everyone's too busy holding on to what they've got to care how their neighbors are doing."